Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #659577 > unrolled thread

Relativistic synchronisation method

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 12:22 +0000
    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2024-12-16 22:59 +0800
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 16:25 +0100
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 16:06 +0000
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 17:43 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 17:02 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 19:51 +0100
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 23:25 +0000
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-17 14:51 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:31 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-21 15:22 +0100
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-21 17:26 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-22 14:02 +0100
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-22 13:35 +0000
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-22 11:16 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-26 14:08 -0800
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-22 20:58 +0100
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-22 12:21 -0800
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 12:31 -0800
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-23 11:32 -0800
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-24 00:17 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-22 21:25 +0100
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 12:26 -0800
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-22 21:15 +0000
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-12-22 13:31 -0800
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2024-12-23 10:16 +0100
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:01 +0000
                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-29 13:39 +0100
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2024-12-29 08:25 -0800
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-29 17:59 +0000
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-30 21:43 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-30 20:59 +0000
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-31 11:15 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 10:32 +0000
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 11:40 +0100
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:26 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 13:05 +0100
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 13:10 +0000
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 10:58 +0000
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 12:37 +0100
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 13:06 +0100
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 13:53 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 17:18 +0000
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:17 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 19:30 +0100
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:50 +0000
                                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 00:03 +0100
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:05 -0800
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:24 -0800
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:28 -0800
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 17:55 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 21:22 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 21:55 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:07 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:14 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:22 +0000
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:38 +0000
                                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-01-01 21:52 +0000
                                          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 22:01 +0100
                                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-02 00:21 +0000
                                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2025-01-01 18:29 +0000
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-29 18:04 +0000
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-30 21:43 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-30 21:06 +0000
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2024-12-31 11:26 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-31 11:04 +0000
                            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2024-12-31 16:29 +0100
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-31 16:46 +0100
                              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-01 14:22 +0100
                                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-01 19:33 +0100
                                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-01-01 23:28 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 00:05 +0100
                                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-01-02 14:31 +0100
                                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-01-02 14:49 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:52 +0000
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 15:35 +0000
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-16 15:36 +0000
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-16 17:41 +0100
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2024-12-17 12:33 +0800
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 10:45 +0000
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-17 12:24 +0100
            Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 16:42 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:19 +0000
                Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 17:32 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:50 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 17:57 +0000
                      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 18:14 +0000
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:15 +0000
                        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2024-12-17 20:47 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:02 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 17:58 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jp@python.invalide> - 2024-12-17 18:40 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 18:01 +0000
                    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Python <jpierre.messager@gmail.com> - 2024-12-17 18:05 +0000
                  Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-18 16:43 +0000
              Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Maciej Wozniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2024-12-17 18:51 +0100
    Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-17 15:30 +0200
      Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-17 14:16 +0000
        Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-12-19 12:52 +0200
          Re: Relativistic synchronisation method Richard Hachel <r.hachel@liscati.fr.invalid> - 2024-12-19 11:34 +0000

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#659577 — Relativistic synchronisation method

It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem", 
and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
It seems especially that even Einstein, don't laugh friends, did not 
understand it, but attacking a living God to denounce him is not easy.
We must always, in all things, try to be fair, try to be true.
It is fair to say that Albert Einstein postulates, without explaining it, 
the invariance of the speed of the speed of light. It is a postulate.
For Hachel, postulating is not enough. We must explain, at the base, why.
Doctor Hachel, blessed be he and accepted in the Holy Lands of 
Aôôôllah, peace be upon him, speaks of a universal anisochrony, and 
claims, blessed be he and accepted in the Holy Lands of Aôôôllah, peace 
be upon him.
The principle is there, and if we affirm that any receiver receives live, 
in perfect cosmic simultaneity, in its hyperplane, any electromagnetic 
signal, it will easily come to mind, that this infinite, instantaneous 
speed of information is constant for any observer, and that it does not 
depend on the speed or direction of the source, nor on that of the 
receiver (which is moreover considered, for him, fixed in his frame of 
reference).
Once this is accepted (see the pdf of Dr. Hachel, blessed be he and 
accepted in the Holy Lands of Aôôôllah, peace be upon him) and accepted 
that the escape velocity of the wave is c/2 for any observer who emits, it 
comes that in synchronization M, M', M"", the speed of the TRANSVERSELY 
observed wave, that is to say neutral, will always be the same, and the 
average of the two other speeds.
We fall back, having explained it, on the constancy of the observable 
speed (transverse, neutral) of light.
This is what I explain in my pdf, on the question of the relativity of 
chronotropy after having discussed anisochrony (the primum movens). The 
moment is relative, chronotropy is relative too. It is a double 
relativity.
We will see that it is the same thing, with lengths and distances. One 
last word: it seems that physicists know perfectly well the notion of 
contraction of lengths and dilation of durations. What is very strange is 
that they have never been able to take the next step, and apply this also 
to DISTANCES and INSTANTS.

Or if they do, they do it badly.

R.H. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#659580

On 16-Dec-24 8:22 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
> It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic problem", 
> and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used 
it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.

As it happens, his definition is very easy to understand, though nothing 
turns on that.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659582

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 15:59, Sylvia Else pisze:
> On 16-Dec-24 8:22 pm, Richard Hachel wrote:
>> It seems that no one has clearly understood the "relativistic 
>> problem", and what a "relativistic synchronization method" is.
> Einstein defined the the word precisely, in the sense in which he used 
> it in his analysis. Since it is a definition, it needs only be applied.

And here, well - a problem arises:(
It can only be applied where no gravity
is present, on the distant clocks somehow
secured to have 0 of relative speed.
Both requirements are unfortunately
utterly idiotic.
Considering also the fact that nobody needs
"synchronization differently" as defined
by Your insane guru - the method is not
going to have a lot of applications, I'm
afraid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659585

Le 16/12/2024 à 16:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> 
> And here, well - a problem arises:(
> It can only be applied where no gravity
> is present, on the distant clocks somehow
> secured to have 0 of relative speed.
> Both requirements are unfortunately
> utterly idiotic.
> Considering also the fact that nobody needs
> "synchronization differently" as defined
> by Your insane guru - the method is not
> going to have a lot of applications, I'm
> afraid.

It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
stationary ones).
If we synchronize on M, the middle of the two watches A and B, we can say 
that two events have occurred simultaneously FOR M, if M perceives them 
simultaneously (whether we take Hachel's convention or Einstein's for that 
matter): because if they are perceived simultaneously, it is because they 
have occurred simultaneously.
Yes, this is true for M.
BUT...
What about A? What about B?
Hachel explains what a seven-year-old child could understand, but what 
many men cannot understand (because of the Freudian problem that is in 
their underpants, not being able to admit that another man has a prettier 
trilili than them).
The notion of simultaneity is relative, if events occur in different 
locations, it is no longer possible to determine whether they were 
simultaneous, or even which ones are prior or subsequent to others.
We will then say: let's no longer synchronize on M to affirm that events A 
and B were simultaneous, but on A. Now, A will consider with astonishment 
that the events were not simultaneous, and that A occurred first. It is 
the opposite for B. To believe otherwise is to believe in a natural 
isochrony of things, and that the notion of "present" is something flat 
and absolute.
Now we CAN synchronize on A. A can say, event A and event B occurred 
simultaneously for A. Why not.
But B will look with astonishment at A saying these things, and fiercely 
deny that the two events were really simultaneous. B will explain that 
with convention A, setting A, he perceives event A which occurred, this 
time, with a shift t=2AB/c.

A seven-year-old child would understand that, but a physicist formatted to 
the idea of ​​a flat present cannot understand it (see Stephen Hawking 
making a fool of himself in his book "A Brief History of Time" by drawing 
a "flat" present).

A seven-year-old child can very well understand that this moon in this sky 
is perceived instantly, and he will be right.

It is the physicist who will be wrong, by imagining a chimera, and by 
believing that the speed of light between the moon and the earth, for a 
transverse observer placed far away and on the mediator, (v=c), is the 
same for a lunar observer who could apprehend his photon, and a 
terrestrial observer who receives it instantaneously on his retina.

Of course, saying that this galaxy located 13 billion light years away, I 
see it as it exists "today", humanity does not seem ready to swallow it 
yet.

Saying that simultaneity depends on POSITION, and that chronotropy depends 
on speed, this is still today a revolutionary act.

Although this is remarkably logical, and proven by thousands of 
experiments, physicists seem to prefer an incomplete and ugly physics, to 
a coherent and perfectly beautiful physics.

The problem is human.

Why do you think that today people get bogged down by putting rings in 
their noses, and painting their bodies with tattoos as ugly as they are 
stupid?

Because everyone deep down, adopts the cult of ugliness.

This is also true for Albert Einstein's explanations against mine.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659587

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
> Le 16/12/2024 à 16:25, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>
>> And here, well - a problem arises:(
>> It can only be applied where no gravity
>> is present, on the distant clocks somehow
>> secured to have 0 of relative speed.
>> Both requirements are unfortunately
>> utterly idiotic.
>> Considering also the fact that nobody needs
>> "synchronization differently" as defined
>> by Your insane guru - the method is not
>> going to have a lot of applications, I'm
>> afraid.
> 
> It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
> stationary ones).


Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
professionals manage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659589

Le 16/12/2024 à 17:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:

>> It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
>> stationary ones).
> 
> 
> Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
> professionals manage.

Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES. 

Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.

Dans notre univers, c'est quelque chose d'absurde.

C'est comme si tu cherchais un carré rond, ou que tu t'épuisais à 
trouver à repeindre ta façade en blanc écarlate. 

Le problème, avec les hommes, c'est qu'ils s'imaginent un univers où le 
présent est "plat" et absolu. 

Ou tout le monde vit à chaque instant dans une sorte d'hyperplan de 
simultanéité généralisé.

Cette vision est un a priori faux et ridicule. 

Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE. Ce n'est pas de la physique. 

Tu vas dire : "Oui, mais dans le cas des GPS, on synchronisent les montres 
entre elles". 

C'est faux, et par une torsion du langage, on fait passer un mensonge pour 
une vérité. 

On ne les synchronise pas ENTRE ELLES (ce qui est impossible).

On les synchronise sur UNE montre abstraite, placé idéalement loin et à 
égale distance de tous les points du repère à synchroniser, c'est à 
dire dans une quatrième dimension spatiale virtuelle. 

C'est ça qu'on fait (sans s'en rendre compte d'ailleurs). C'est ce qu' 
Einstein a fait, c'est ce que tous les physiciens du monde font. 

MAIS...

Ne pas comprendre que :
 1. C'est ça qu'on fait
 2. qu'il est impossible sinon d'avoir une synchronisation absolue réelle 
(anisochronie universelle)

c'est ne rien comprendre aux principes même de la théorie.

R.H. 

 

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659590

W dniu 16.12.2024 o 18:02, Richard Hachel pisze:
> Le 16/12/2024 à 17:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>> W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
> 
>>> It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
>>> stationary ones).
>>
>>
>> Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
>> professionals manage.
> 
> Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
> Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.


Take your precious PHYSIQUE and put it
straight into your dumb ass, where it belongs.
The clocks, their synchronization, time - have
nothing to do with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659593

Le 16/12/2024 à 19:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
> W dniu 16.12.2024 o 18:02, Richard Hachel pisze:
>> Le 16/12/2024 à 17:43, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
>>> W dniu 16.12.2024 o 17:06, Richard Hachel pisze:
>> 
>>>> It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
>>>> stationary ones).
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe for you. Anyone can check GPS, the
>>> professionals manage.
>> 
>> Tu ne peux pas synchroniser deux montres ENTRE ELLES.
>> Ce n'est pas PHYSIQUE.
> 
> 
> Take your precious PHYSIQUE and put it
> straight into your dumb ass, where it belongs.
> The clocks, their synchronization, time - have
> nothing to do with it.

J'aurais tenté de t'expliquer.

Je vois que c'est peine perdue.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659601

Den 16.12.2024 17:06, skrev Richard Hachel:
> 
> It is absolutely impossible to synchronize two distant watches (even 
> stationary ones).

Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.

To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock

How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?


You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659604

Le 17/12/2024 à 14:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>> stationary ones).
> 
> Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
> 
> To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock
> 
> How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
> 
> 
> You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.

There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at the 
same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.

An observer placed in another location will not have the same notion of 
what is simultaneous or not, and various events that are placed in a given 
hyperplane of simultaneity (the set of events that occur in the local 
present time of an individual), will no longer be in a hyperplane of 
present time for another individual.

Each hyperplane can only be unique.

Thus, I could never synchronize your watch with mine in absolute terms, 
and for example five or ten simultaneous events for me (in the same 
hyperplane if I draw a 3D diagram) will necessarily no longer be 
simultaneous for you, and vice versa.

It is therefore necessary to synchronize on something abstract, and to 
refer to what this watch NOTES of the various events. This watch, I call 
it watch M, it is the abstract, virtual watch that all physicists adopt 
without knowing that it is the one they are adopting.

It is the one that gives "a certain coherence", and gives "usable labels" 
to things.

But two watches, in themselves are incongruous without going through this. 
A fortiori billions of watches placed in our universe (even stationary 
ones).

All are set to this virtual watch M, which is used to consider that there 
is a "flat" present, and therefore that we can synchronize things.

But it is abstract, OUTSIDE-WORLD.

Useful, yes. Very useful. But outside-world.

I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something that 
you have not previously understood.

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659717

Den 17.12.2024 15:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 17/12/2024 à 14:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>> stationary ones).
>>
>> Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
>>
>> To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock
>>
>> How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
>>
>>
>> You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.

You ignored my question, so I will ask again.

> 
> Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
> 
> There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at 
> the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.

Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
So please do.

Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?

How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?


Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?

> I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something 
> that you have not previously understood.
> 
> R.H.

I do neither.

Please answer my simple questions.

If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659719

Le 21/12/2024 à 15:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 17.12.2024 15:31, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 17/12/2024 à 14:49, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>> stationary ones).
>>>
>>> Your wristwatch and my wristwatch are both showing UTC + 1 hour.
>>>
>>> To synchronise my wristwatch, I used this:  https://time.is/clock
>>>
>>> How did you synchronise your wristwatch to show UTC + 1 hour, Richard?
>>>
>>>
>>> You will ignore this, but I will ask you again.
> 
> You ignored my question, so I will ask again.
> 
>> 
>> Paul, Paul, I beg you to understand something.
>> 
>> There is no absolute simultaneity. To say that two events occurred at 
>> the same time only makes sense locally and for ONE given observer.
> 
> Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
> I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
> So please do.
> 
> Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
> 
> How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
> that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
> 
> 
> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
> on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
> 
>> I beg you (vain hope) to understand this before criticizing something 
>> that you have not previously understood.
>> 
>> R.H.
> 
> I do neither.
> 
> Please answer my simple questions.
> 
> If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.

I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read 
my answers.
So we are in an insurmountable problem.
Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and 
Richard Hachel.
No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are 
not French.
Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture 
out of a desire to hate their own culture.
We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various entities, 
must have a Breton entity.
So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I 
ask readers to read them carefully.
When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it 
(even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).
What more do you want to ask me?

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659728

Den 21.12.2024 18:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 21/12/2024 à 15:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
>> I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
>> So please do.
>>
>> Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
>>
>> How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
>> that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
>>
>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
>> on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
>>
>>
>> If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.

You have still not answered my questions, so I will ask again.

> 
> I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read 
> my answers.

The answers you repeat below?

> So we are in an insurmountable problem.
> Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
> There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and 
> Richard Hachel.
> No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are 
> not French.
> Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture 
> out of a desire to hate their own culture.
> We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
> Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various 
> entities, must have a Breton entity.
> So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
> I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I 
> ask readers to read them carefully.
> When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it 
> (even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).

I don't understand your answers to my questions.

> What more do you want to ask me?

I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.

I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
answer "YES" or "NO".

Here we go:

Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
  'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use the internet to set your watch?
(or is your watch a computer on the net?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
(or is your watch a mobile phone?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use GPS to set your watch?
(or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
  'yes' or 'no', please!

Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
(or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)

Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
  'yes' or 'no', please!


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659731

Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> Den 21.12.2024 18:26, skrev Richard Hachel:
>> Le 21/12/2024 à 15:21, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>
>>> Richard, I an not criticising you or your theory.
>>> I am only asking simple questions I would like you to answer,
>>> So please do.
>>>
>>> Richard, you have a watch of some kind, haven't you?
>>>
>>> How did you set your clock to show what it shows, so
>>> that you can reach your bus or train at the right time?
>>>
>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock
>>> on the wall of the railway station (within a minute or so)?
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ignore them yet again, I will ask you  again.
> 
> You have still not answered my questions, so I will ask again.
> 
>> 
>> I have already answered all these questions, except that you do not read 
>> my answers.
> 
> The answers you repeat below?
> 
>> So we are in an insurmountable problem.
>> Especially since my posts are in French, and my pdfs in French.
>> There are of course French people, who should love Henri Poincaré and 
>> Richard Hachel.
>> No! They love Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because they are 
>> not French.
>> Those are the race below the race of toads. They hate their own culture 
>> out of a desire to hate their own culture.
>> We have a good example here with the idiot "Python".
>> Who hates France and would love a cession of France into various 
>> entities, must have a Breton entity.
>> So as soon as the scent of France is felt a little, he goes crazy.
>> I have already answered your questions many times. When you post pdfs, I 
>> ask readers to read them carefully.
>> When I think I see inaccuracies, I explain them, and I try to correct it 
>> (even the notion of integration which is incorrect in one of your pdf).
> 
> I don't understand your answers to my questions.
> 
>> What more do you want to ask me?
> 
> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
> 
> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
> answer "YES" or "NO".
> 
> Here we go:
> 
> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>   'yes' or 'no', please!
> 
> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>   'yes' or 'no', please!
> 
> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>   'yes' or 'no', please!
> 
> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>   'yes' or 'no', please!
> 
> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
> 
> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>   'yes' or 'no', please

Everything you say is true.

So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a 
synchronization process consists of in our universe.

When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a 
single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given 
place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in 
the cosmos).

This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the 
watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

Breathe, blow.

This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, and 
will always remain so, but that the basic watch serves to give the whole a 
false, but COHERENT system.

That is to say that we are dealing with a type M synchronization if you 
follow what I wrote in French in my pdf.

In Einstein, the explanations do not exceed three lines, and in Poincaré 
one line. This is not enough to understand, teach and explain what is 
happening.

To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly 
nor too quickly.

It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is 
said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with 
the most precise words possible.

pdf here ---> <http://nemoweb.net/jntp?HQFxpJvcwIpLhNIeMKqLNQ292YE@jntp/Data.Media:1>

R.H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659736

Richard Hachel wrote:

> To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly
> nor too quickly.

The O'l Great One has spoken. 


> 
> It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is
> said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with
> the most precise words possible.

You have to 'watch out' wit dis guy Richard Hachel, [WHISPER] He's a religious fanatic.


When Richard Hachel ses "... I am told that we do not understand..."

dats gangster religion. Religious scientists trying to indoctrinate the sciences with their gangster religion.



https://biblehub.com/luke/18-34.htm


"I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Why do you seek me?" 


'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.'



If I go to France, do you think dat Hachel Wizard will give me a brain???




With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You could be another Lincoln If you only had a brain.





Hooray! We're off to see a Wizard!











-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659842

Further more, what When Richard Hachel ses "... I am told that we do not
understand..." is simply
comes from...


Paraphrasing plagiarism

This is, as published on Wiley, the most common type of plagiarism. It
involves the use of someone else’s writing with 
some minor changes in the sentences and using it as one’s own. Even if
the words differ, the original idea remains the same and plagiarism
occurs. 


we do not understand what is  said, when everything is clearly defined,
even defined several times with
the most precise words possible.
https://biblehub.com/luke/18-34.htm



Of course, everybody should know by now dis Paraphrasing plagiarism was
done by a French guy.


and the French guy "told" another French guy named Richard Hachel.



Who invented French Fries?









The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Richard Hachel wrote:
> 
> > To understand, you have to reread what I wrote, calmly, neither too slowly
> > nor too quickly.
> 
> The O'l Great One has spoken.
> 
> >
> > It is absolutely abnormal that I am told that we do not understand what is
> > said, when everything is clearly defined, even defined several times with
> > the most precise words possible.
> 
> You have to 'watch out' wit dis guy Richard Hachel, [WHISPER] He's a religious fanatic.
> 
> When Richard Hachel ses "... I am told that we do not understand..."
> 
> dats gangster religion. Religious scientists trying to indoctrinate the sciences with their gangster religion.
> 
> https://biblehub.com/luke/18-34.htm
> 
> "I am Oz, the Great and Terrible. Why do you seek me?"
> 
> 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.'
> 
> If I go to France, do you think dat Hachel Wizard will give me a brain???
> 
> With the thoughts you'd be thinkin' You could be another Lincoln If you only had a brain.
> 
> Hooray! We're off to see a Wizard!
> 
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge the unchallengeable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659738

Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>
>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>
>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>
>> Here we go:
>>
>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>
>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>
>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>
>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>   'yes' or 'no', please!
>>
>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>
>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>   'yes' or 'no', please
> 
> Everything you say is true.
> 
> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.

OK. Thanks for a clear answer.

You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.

That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
So do the clocks in most western European countries,
Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
(My clock within 1 second)

> 
> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a 
> synchronization process consists of in our universe.

> 
> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a 
> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given 
> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in 
> the cosmos).

Quite.
The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA

  https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/


> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the 
> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.

It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.

Richard, I am in the real world.

I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:

https://time.is/clock

It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
within a second.

You answered yes to these questions:
Do you use the internet to set your watch?
Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?

So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
(I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)

So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
when you set your clock.

How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D

> 
> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature, 
> and will always remain so,

You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?


Merry Christmas Richard.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659740

Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
> > Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> >>
> >> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
> >>
> >> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
> >> answer "YES" or "NO".
> >>
> >> Here we go:
> >>
> >> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
> >> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>
> >> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> >> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
> >> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>
> >> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
> >> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
> >> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>
> >> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
> >> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
> >> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>
> >> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
> >> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
> >>
> >> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> >> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> >> Â  'yes' or 'no', please
> >
> > Everything you say is true.
> >
> > So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> 
> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> 
> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> 
> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
> (My clock within 1 second)
> 
> >
> > The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
> > synchronization process consists of in our universe.
> 
> >
> > When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
> > single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
> > place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
> > the cosmos).
> 
> Quite.
> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
> 
>   https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
> 
> > This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
> > watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
> 
> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
> 
> Richard, I am in the real world.
> 
> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
> 
> https://time.is/clock
> 
> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
> within a second.
> 
> You answered yes to these questions:
> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> 
> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
> 
> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
> when you set your clock.
> 
> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
> 
> >
> > This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
> > and will always remain so,
> 
> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
> 
> Merry Christmas Richard.
> 
> --
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/


I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659743

On 12/22/2024 12:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
>>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
>>>>
>>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
>>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
>>>>
>>>> Here we go:
>>>>
>>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
>>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
>>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
>>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
>>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
>>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
>>>>
>>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
>>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
>>>>
>>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please
>>>
>>> Everything you say is true.
>>>
>>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
>>
>> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
>>
>> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
>> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
>>
>> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
>> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
>> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
>> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
>> (My clock within 1 second)
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
>>> synchronization process consists of in our universe.
>>
>>>
>>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
>>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
>>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
>>> the cosmos).
>>
>> Quite.
>> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
>> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
>>
>>    https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
>>
>>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
>>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
>>
>> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
>>
>> Richard, I am in the real world.
>>
>> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
>>
>> https://time.is/clock
>>
>> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
>> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
>> within a second.
>>
>> You answered yes to these questions:
>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
>>
>> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
>> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
>> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
>>
>> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
>> when you set your clock.
>>
>> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
>>
>>>
>>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
>>> and will always remain so,
>>
>> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
>> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
>> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
>>
>> Merry Christmas Richard.
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/
>
>
> I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...
>
>
>
>
>

Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
now it's stopped.


The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
and most of inflationary theory since it was already
for decades and decades that astronomy just has
only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
is removable because of optical effects and now
all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
way of reading them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#659762

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On 12/22/2024 12:21 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> Den 22.12.2024 14:35, skrev Richard Hachel:
> >>> Le 22/12/2024 à 14:00, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
> >>>>
> >>>> I want you to answer my simple questions in a way I can understand.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will reformulate my question so you will only have to
> >>>> answer "YES" or "NO".
> >>>>
> >>>> Here we go:
> >>>>
> >>>> Richard, do you own a watch of some kind?
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a computer on the net?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use a mobile network to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a mobile phone?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use GPS to set your watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch a GPS-receiver?)
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please!
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you use public radio or TV to set your  watch?
> >>>> (or is your watch on a radio receiver or a TV?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> >>>> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> >>>> Â  'yes' or 'no', please
> >>>
> >>> Everything you say is true.
> >>>
> >>> So I can answer "yes, absolutely" to all your questions.
> >>
> >> OK. Thanks for a clear answer.
> >>
> >> You expect your watch to be synchronous with the clock on the wall
> >> of a railway station or an airport an airport within a minute or so.
> >>
> >> That is because you know that just about all clocks in France
> >> are synchronous and show UTC+1 hour.
> >> So do the clocks in most western European countries,
> >> Your clock and my clock are synchronous with UTC+1h.
> >> (My clock within 1 second)
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The problem is that you do not understand what you are doing, and what a
> >>> synchronization process consists of in our universe.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> When you synchronize all the users' watches, you synchronize them on a
> >>> single watch, which is the system watch and which is located in a given
> >>> place (the position of the watch is as crucial as its relative speed in
> >>> the cosmos).
> >>
> >> Quite.
> >> The single clock is the USNO Master Clock.
> >> Its position in cosmos is Washington, D.C., USA
> >>
> >>    https://www.cnmoc.usff.navy.mil/Our-Commands/United-States-Naval-Observatory/Precise-Time-Department/The-USNO-Master-Clock/
> >>
> >>> This watch is an "abstract", virtual watch, which synchronizes all the
> >>> watches on it, and on IT ALONE, to give coherence to the whole.
> >>
> >> It is a very real clock, consisting of several atomic clocks.
> >>
> >> Richard, I am in the real world.
> >>
> >> I synchronise my clock to the master clock with this:
> >>
> >> https://time.is/clock
> >>
> >> It uses the internet. The delay both ways in the net is measured
> >> and corrected for, so the displayed  time will be correct
> >> within a second.
> >>
> >> You answered yes to these questions:
> >> Do you use the internet to set your watch?
> >> Do you expect your watch to show the same as the clock on
> >> the wall of a railway station or an airport (within a minute or so)?
> >>
> >> So you synchronise your clock to UTC+1h in the same way as I do, and you
> >> expect your clock to be synchronous with UTC+1h within a minute or so.
> >> (I expect it to be synchronous within a second.)
> >>
> >> So don't tell me that you used some "abstract virtual clock"
> >> when you set your clock.
> >>
> >> How did you read "the abstract virtual clock"? :-D
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This means that in fact, all the watches remain out of tune by nature,
> >>> and will always remain so,
> >>
> >> You have said that you use internet to synchronise your clock,
> >> so what does it mean that it still is "out of tune"?
> >> Is your clock a cuckoo clock with a cuckoo who is singing out of tune?
> >>
> >> Merry Christmas Richard.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
> >
> >
> > I synchronise my clock to the first 3 seconds of the big bang...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Well that's ignorant, both Big Bang and Steady State
> are neither falsifiable, neither "scientific",
> both merely exercises in tuning, furthermore
> now it's stopped.
> 
> The JWST has roundly paint-canned expansion theory
> and most of inflationary theory since it was already
> for decades and decades that astronomy just has
> only one variable "redshift" that redshift bias
> is removable because of optical effects and now
> all the old Cold Lambda have a sort of speculative
> way of reading them.


You have to understand..

Time (as you know it) had it's beginging with space and time.


The first 3 seconds is universal time.


Local time is Einstien's Time.


In other words, you have your clock synchronized to a
Cuckoo clock that sits outside looking out of
Einstein'ts window.


Just take the first 3 seconds and add additional seconds until
you reach...Now. That would be the correct time...now. 



 






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web